Death Penalty, Right Or Wrong? Your Views

[Kay 0]

This has been hiding in my blog, but I think it has a place on the forums as a discussion topic!

Death Penalty - The Background

Firstly, I have changed my stance from the

[Sato 0]

I also responded to this on you're blog, but I'll make another reply here too

First off, I am against the death penalty as well, I don't think it is the best way to go. Most of my thoughts are somewhere in your post. The main ones being...

1) The pressure it'd put on the jury.

How confident would you have to be, before giving a guilty verdict, knowing theres a good chance of the death penalty? I wouldn't like someones life hanging over my head.

2) What if they're wrong?

If a person is wrongly convicted and sent away, it can be corrected if it's later realised. If they're dead, how do you fix it? Imagine how bad you'd feel if you were once again on the jury in that one!

3) I don't think it'll deter that many people.

Death penalty would most likely be put on murder only. It may be on others too I guess, but they'd still be big crimes, and I think the people who commit murder and other big crimes are unlikely to be deterred by the death penalty, especially in the case of murder. A lot of murderers aren't going to sit and think "You know, if I kill them, I might get the death penalty! I better not". I just don't see the type of people who do it thinking like that at all.

Overall, I don't think an 'eye for an eye' really applies, for me, here.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm for the a death penalty, but of a type like we have in California. There's an exhaustive appeals process that takes, on the average, 15 years to complete. The combination of multiple judges looking at the evidence over that period of time and the rate of technical advances over that amount of years tends to reduce the amount of 'innocent' people being executed, in theory. In reality, if you look through the cases of our executions, you cannot deny the weight of evidence against the convicted. All you are left with is the humanitarian argument...is it 'right' to kill a person for certain crimes.

I feel it is right. I don't care much about the 'deterrent' effect it has, as that is non-existent, but I feel strongly that if you commit premeditated murder, to name one crime, than you must also die. I have no sympathy for you. I have no concern for your continued existence.

[AutoRacer5 0]

Some crimes are so heinous that if they are proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the accused are guilty, then it should be a soon death.

[pumpdoc 2]

I'm for the a death penalty, but of a type like we have in California. There's an exhaustive appeals process that takes, on the average, 15 years to complete. The combination of multiple judges looking at the evidence over that period of time and the rate of technical advances over that amount of years tends to reduce the amount of 'innocent' people being executed, in theory. In reality, if you look through the cases of our executions, you cannot deny the weight of evidence against the convicted. All you are left with is the humanitarian argument...is it 'right' to kill a person for certain crimes.

I feel it is right. I don't care much about the 'deterrent' effect it has, as that is non-existent, but I feel strongly that if you commit premeditated murder, to name one crime, than you must also die. I have no sympathy for you. I have no concern for your continued existence.

+1

[Max Mosley 2]

What an awesome post Kay! I still haven't read it but its length makes it irrefutable!

Just kidding - I will get round to reading it soon. In the mean time, I don't really agree with the death penalty. I think everyone deserves a second chance. I have issues with assigning moral blame to anyone for anything, as I've mentioned before.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

I

[Max Mosley 2]

You're stalking me! Everywhere I post, you do too. Death to Argento!

[kiko01 0]

I'm against... I have to say though that George Bush should be executed for the crimes he has comitted against the humanity.

[Kay 0]

I'm for the a death penalty, but of a type like we have in California. There's an exhaustive appeals process that takes, on the average, 15 years to complete. The combination of multiple judges looking at the evidence over that period of time and the rate of technical advances over that amount of years tends to reduce the amount of 'innocent' people being executed, in theory. In reality, if you look through the cases of our executions, you cannot deny the weight of evidence against the convicted. All you are left with is the humanitarian argument...is it 'right' to kill a person for certain crimes.

I feel it is right. I don't care much about the 'deterrent' effect it has, as that is non-existent, but I feel strongly that if you commit premeditated murder, to name one crime, than you must also die. I have no sympathy for you. I have no concern for your continued existence.

But where do you draw the line at? What happens if it was premeditated to protect another life, for instance if someone was hurting their child?

[Max Mosley 2]

And what makes one person commit murder while another doesn't? Until we can answer that, we can't say that they are even morally responsible for doing it imho.

[Quiet One 15]

Totally against it. I already complimented you on your blog, Kay. And I will say it again: wonderful, wonderful post! YOu should seriously consider becoming a professional writer on these things. Not only because of the concepts, but on how clearly you express them and you have an innate feeling of the rythm for writing which makes it very pleasant and informative at the same time.

Why I oppose it? Not because I feel any sympathies for the murderers/rapists/druglords/whatever, but because I feel sympathy for the society, which would become the executor in case of a death penalty approved (here we have no death penalty).

I will no comment on the issues Kay explained, I just agree with them. I will just add my opinion from a total ignoramus point of view:

Besides the complexity of proving beyond all reasonable doubt, its dubious deterrent usefulness, the high cost, etc. I feel that there is a philosophical foundation for not approving it. Society, and its political expression: the State, is not just a big bully brother in which we find refuge. It's the expression of our dreams and aspirations of living all together in harmony under certain rules. As such, the State should be the expression of our better parts, otherwise we got the States we have now: authoritarian, corrupt, unfair, etc.

By approving the death penalty, we are turning the State into a murderer, and, by reflection, our own society and ourselves. The government is killing on our behalf. I don't want to pay taxes and elect rulers to kill on my behalf. Society should not allow revenge to be part of its foundations. I can understand the rage of someone who was related to a victim getting so mad that he/she will go hunt the murderer and kill him. I can understand feelings in people, I don't condone those actions in a government.

As for what to do with the criminals, I think there should be 2 kinds of institutions: a jail, but not one made to punish the criminals, one made to integrate them back into society. That one should be made for the "recoverable" criminals. There are unrecoverable criminals. Paedophilia is not recoverable according to psychologists, for example. Psychotic murderers, too. Those should be committed in mental institutions, but not just as a means to take them off the streets, but to understand them better and find the causes that make them appear. Crime should be prevented, and stopped at its source.

Oh, and I think corruption from leaders and robber barons here has caused more deaths than any serial killer, how would you punish that?

(Yes Bruce, you wanted the commie b#####d back, now you got it! )

[james 0]

But where do you draw the line at? What happens if it was premeditated to protect another life, for instance if someone was hurting their child?

Thats why there are judges and jurys. Every case is different and that needs to be taken into account when determining the sentence. Like, if a woman is getting beaten by her husband and she gets tired of it and kills him, I might want her to see a therapist for a little while but wouldn't even give her a day of jail time. On the other hand, if someone willfully and maliciously takes the like of another for a reason other than that of protecting their life, property, and well being, or the life, property, and well being of another, the penalty should be death.

[rumblestrip 0]

It's an interesting subject.

I guess in my personal opinion, I think it would be better off abolished. I don't think it's much of a deterrent at all, and I think its primary function is to exact a sort of revenge on the criminal to whom it's administered. Regardless of how many appeals there are, there's still a chance that an innocent person will be executed.

In my country (the US) the death penalty is also applied unevenly with regards to race. That is, if you're a black person, you have a much higher chance of getting the death penalty than a white person who committed the same crime.

I've read that it's also expensive to implement.

If it were an effective deterrent, then maybe I could see the use in it, but since it's not, I don't think having a revenge-based punishment is a good thing for a society.

[Stub-o-matic 0]

I

[jackgarrett 0]

i am fully against, i can handle it.

[pumpdoc 2]

Totally against it. I already complimented you on your blog, Kay. And I will say it again: wonderful, wonderful post! YOu should seriously consider becoming a professional writer on these things. Not only because of the concepts, but on how clearly you express them and you have an innate feeling of the rythm for writing which makes it very pleasant and informative at the same time.

Why I oppose it? Not because I feel any sympathies for the murderers/rapists/druglords/whatever, but because I feel sympathy for the society, which would become the executor in case of a death penalty approved (here we have no death penalty).

I will no comment on the issues Kay explained, I just agree with them. I will just add my opinion from a total ignoramus point of view:

Besides the complexity of proving beyond all reasonable doubt, its dubious deterrent usefulness, the high cost, etc. I feel that there is a philosophical foundation for not approving it. Society, and its political expression: the State, is not just a big bully brother in which we find refuge. It's the expression of our dreams and aspirations of living all together in harmony under certain rules. As such, the State should be the expression of our better parts, otherwise we got the States we have now: authoritarian, corrupt, unfair, etc.

By approving the death penalty, we are turning the State into a murderer, and, by reflection, our own society and ourselves. The government is killing on our behalf. I don't want to pay taxes and elect rulers to kill on my behalf. Society should not allow revenge to be part of its foundations. I can understand the rage of someone who was related to a victim getting so mad that he/she will go hunt the murderer and kill him. I can understand feelings in people, I don't condone those actions in a government.

As for what to do with the criminals, I think there should be 2 kinds of institutions: a jail, but not one made to punish the criminals, one made to integrate them back into society. That one should be made for the "recoverable" criminals. There are unrecoverable criminals. Paedophilia is not recoverable according to psychologists, for example. Psychotic murderers, too. Those should be committed in mental institutions, but not just as a means to take them off the streets, but to understand them better and find the causes that make them appear. Crime should be prevented, and stopped at its source.

Oh, and I think corruption from leaders and robber barons here has caused more deaths than any serial killer, how would you punish that?

(Yes Bruce, you wanted the commie b#####d back, now you got it! )

Bleeding heart liberal..................

Not that I want to get to far into this subject, but my 1st wife was murdered in cold blood back when I was 19, her killer was 17 and under the laws of the time(1976) was tried as a juvinile and only served 9 years. Other than me I don't think anyone here has had this happen to them, if you had you would want to see someone that had not one iota about ending a life put to death also............................................................

[Kay 0]

Thats why there are judges and jurys. Every case is different and that needs to be taken into account when determining the sentence. Like, if a woman is getting beaten by her husband and she gets tired of it and kills him, I might want her to see a therapist for a little while but wouldn't even give her a day of jail time. On the other hand, if someone willfully and maliciously takes the like of another for a reason other than that of protecting their life, property, and well being, or the life, property, and well being of another, the penalty should be death.

Yes there are judges and the jury but they can only go with the guidelines set before them, so they need these guidelines to be clear (unlike F1 rules). For instance, in the UK they went with indeterminate sentences and then shoot down the judges for using them too harshly. If you allow good reasoning to avoid the death penalty then I'm sure everyone would say they had one, alike to the mental health of a defendant currently.

[Wez 0]

This topic is a bomb waiting to explode... hold on tight folks!

Regarding the topic, I do find it difficult to see how some murderous savages deserve the right to life though! (I pretty much take Bruce's side).

[Kay 0]

Bruce, I do sympathise greatly, but I also know the word sorry most probably lost any meaning that it might have had before.

I've mentioned in my long post my coming together with the justice system in England and I'd say the same; that it was not fair in the slightest and doesn't feel like justice. However, for the UK at least, I realised that the death penalty wasn't the problem and there were more fundamental issues where money was being wasted that could be recouped and spent on longer prison sentences. Life in prison should mean until they die.

My own experience has turned me from pro death to anti death, so I do not think it's fair to say that everyone would feel that way, I know many do, because I saw family around me wanting the individual killed. I mean no disrespect and none of my comments are personal, it's one reason why I hate to disclose any details of what I went through, although several times it's hurt more, because I've had assumptions thrown at my feet.

I don't think it's a bomb waiting to explode, everybody here (at least to the point where I have posted) can respect everybody's views and discuss the matter respectively. This isn't about who has the right or wrong view, this topic was started in the interest of having more views, after all the more you hear the more your own views are shaped and changed. For instance when I ask where the line is drawn at, it's out of interest, because in the past I have never been able to find that line and satisfy myself that guilty won't walk through the same loopholes.

[LabradoRacer 2]

In fact, I'd like to bet they'd make them a damn site worse, as poor communication systems and administration procedures creates a lot of problems.

Sight.

I am for the death penalty. In fact taking a step further, I wish it could be possible for the murderer to be "alive & dead" at the same time.I'd like to tell the person , "See you scumbag,there's your dead body. I have got revenge."

Perhaps,on second thoughts ,keeping a murderer alive in a dank small cell & making him/her die every moment of the remaining life is a more sadistic & pleasurable way of torture/revenge. I mean ,after being cooped up in a cell,that person desires to die,but by keeping his/her life intact ,we can make him/her die a million deaths.

[Quiet One 15]

Bleeding heart liberal..................

Not that I want to get to far into this subject, but my 1st wife was murdered in cold blood back when I was 19, her killer was 17 and under the laws of the time(1976) was tried as a juvinile and only served 9 years. Other than me I don't think anyone here has had this happen to them, if you had you would want to see someone that had not one iota about ending a life put to death also............................................................

I know, Bruce. And I can't even start to imagine the hell you went through due to that crime, but like I said, as much as I would sympathize on a personal level if you ever find that guy, rip off his balls and than make him swallow them, I don't want my government being the one that does that.

Heck, I wanted to murder the guys that mugged me once and all I lost was a leather jacket! Revenge is a natural feeling on individuals, but does not make a good state policy, in my opinion.

Damn, it's too hard to express what I want to express!

[Max Mosley 2]

Bleeding heart liberal..................

Not that I want to get to far into this subject, but my 1st wife was murdered in cold blood back when I was 19, her killer was 17 and under the laws of the time(1976) was tried as a juvinile and only served 9 years. Other than me I don't think anyone here has had this happen to them, if you had you would want to see someone that had not one iota about ending a life put to death also............................................................

Yeah I think you've said before. I can't imagine what that would be like. You're a good man Bruce. Maybe the worst things happen to the best of men...

Like Andres, I've never been a victim of serious crime. My bike was stolen not so long ago, and if I'd got hold of the culprits I would probably have done something out of character...

[pumpdoc 2]

Bruce, I do sympathise greatly, but I also know the word sorry most probably lost any meaning that it might have had before.

I've mentioned in my long post my coming together with the justice system in England and I'd say the same; that it was not fair in the slightest and doesn't feel like justice. However, for the UK at least, I realised that the death penalty wasn't the problem and there were more fundamental issues where money was being wasted that could be recouped and spent on longer prison sentences. Life in prison should mean until they die.

My own experience has turned me from pro death to anti death, so I do not think it's fair to say that everyone would feel that way, I know many do, because I saw family around me wanting the individual killed. I mean no disrespect and none of my comments are personal, it's one reason why I hate to disclose any details of what I went through, although several times it's hurt more, because I've had assumptions thrown at my feet.

I don't think it's a bomb waiting to explode, everybody here (at least to the point where I have posted) can respect everybody's views and discuss the matter respectively. This isn't about who has the right or wrong view, this topic was started in the interest of having more views, after all the more you hear the more your own views are shaped and changed. For instance when I ask where the line is drawn at, it's out of interest, because in the past I have never been able to find that line and satisfy myself that guilty won't walk through the same loopholes.

Not a problem Kay............

[goferrarigo 0]

This topic is a bomb waiting to explode... hold on tight folks!

Regarding the topic, I do find it difficult to see how some murderous savages deserve the right to life though! (I pretty much take Bruce's side).

Me too... but only if they can proved beyond any doubt....